People to make government more transparent? @AntiFish03

Citizens cannot yell fire in a theater but our govt surely can start one, incite a revolution and overthrow a Shaw for British oil destabilizing an entire region for decades though. Sound familiar?

You might want to find to look at my reply to that if you missed it about fire in a theater https://discord.com/channels/760945067107680286/771201221145919499/784582827823988756

Not something that most politicians talk about... I was meaning firearms wise...

I was responding to the thing about government being resistant to passing legislation for transparency. @AntiFish03 it would require a bipartisan effort to prioritize that to make legislators campaign on that front

Gun laws only affect law abiding citizens. And even with the death penalty, criminals still tend to use firearms.

Agreed, its something I'd love to see. Better transparency in our government

Agreed for the most part. But stiffer penalties means that they are at least incarcerated for longer. And not in our society.

I'm not advocating for gun control. I was trying to see if there was a way to bridge the gap. It was a thought experiment. Where is the reasonable limit on what kind of weapon can or cannot be owned by a citizen? If there is one.

Sensible and responsible appraoch to gun ownership just like including in womens rights access to a safe abortion via allowing MD hospital privlages while also giving her the weighted knowledge of her decision and allowing time for a sensible and responsible decision. Perhaps gun rights should be allowcated to the state.

@inwa, you just advanced to level 10!

Safe abortion is a relative term

There are some who believe only muskets are allowed as that was the common firearm of the time. By that standard, only the written or printed word would be permissible under the 1st amendment, all other forms such as texting, internet, cellular, etc would be restricted or banned.

@Bey, you just advanced to level 15!

I was using a quick shorthand. I am aware that it is not an apt analogy, I was being lazy.

Making something a crime is a way of enforcing an established limit.

@TaLoN132, you just advanced to level 27!

A limit that is predicated on a person abusing a right, not a limit on everyone who isn't abusing the right

Oh, great. Doc is at a Russian click-bait farm also in collusion with Biden, tampering with elections and spreading massive disinformation. Russia is the "fire in the crowded theater" only this time the Dems have cried wolf for so long, the wolf has easy access. Sadly, RT is what Western media used to look like. Unbiased, fact-based journalism.

Those fraudsters dare to rig the election because they trust Americans want more their social life and networks accounts than their freedom and democracy.

You would have to read the papers to better understand, but either way...whatever we were doing in Ukraine (whether sound or not) multimillions to the son sitting on the board of Burisma and a legit Quid Pro Quo is extortion and criminal.

Would imagine they are highly transparent to their own.

What I am getting at is that there are other areas where we have figured out how someone can own what they want and use it in a manner that is consistent with societal norms. For example, we don't prevent people from owning cars that can go 200+mph and they can drive them as long as they abide by the rules of the road. They can go to a race track and let loose, of course.

@inwa I dont think a troll farm can afford me. My rate starts at 120 USD/hr

Maybe a troll farm leader?

Or troll trainer?

Troll SF?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NnCbkIowDw

I did see that but overthrow of the Shaw began with a fire in a theater ironically.

I think you guys should get together with Robert Barnes and Viva Frei and do a live stream together. Robert has a LOT of information on whats going on in the background and the reasoning behind a lot of the court decisions happening right now.

There are reasonable limit points always have been, but setting them in stone is the issue, innovation comes from necessity... Somethings in general are out of reach because of their cost, some because of their complexity, or even both. Banning something outright is what the government has elected to do... That's not letting people own what they want and use it responsibly...

i like Robert Barnes

Faceb00k 0culus. Exactly where they want you. Blind and deaf to anything else but their content and your hands busy. It's right there in their advertising.

@inwa what's the quid pro quo in the scenario?

@WaffleWaffle, you just advanced to level 5!

@inwa yes run of the mill nepotism is wrong, if we had more transparency we would know who else also engages in this type of behavior

I think that is the right approach... I believe focusing on the "use it responsibly" side of that equation has a higher chance of success. Somewhere between "just trust me" and "formalizing certification requirements".

@james j I recommend this: https://books.google.no/books/about/The_Transparency_Society.html?id=SUgJCgAAQBAJ&source=kp_book_description&redir_esc=y

There is a lot of information available, Here is some of the things people need to know in a video from last sunday night. you guys need to get together and do one to cover a lot of the insider information. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-YI7p8OClM

When will the Supremes weight in? Come on already...

@inwa also quid pros are only illegal if it’s for persona/political gain. If you are referring to the shokin prosecutor he was fired at a time when he was not prosecuting burisma or any other crime at the time. Ukraine’s own people wanted him out along with the IMF because they did not trust him.

@Doc everything is in a foreign language